Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli
AIR2006SC1675, (2006)4SCC558
Hon’ble Judges/Coram: Dalveer Bhandari, B.N. Agrawal, and A.K. Mathur, JJ.
Decided On: March 21st, 2006
FACTS:-
The appellant Naveen Kohli got married to the respondent Neetu Kohli on November 20th, 1975. Three sons were born out of the wedlock. Soon, the appellant and the respondent fell out. A lot of accusations and counter-accusations were made by the appellant and the respondent. The Family Court ordered cancellation of marriage between parties under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and directed the appellant to pay to the respondent Rupees 5 lakhs as her livelihood allowance. However, this order of the Family Court, Kanpur City was dismissed on appeal by a Division Bench of the Allahabad Allahabad High Court. From there, the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:-
Whether decree of divorce should be granted in the instant case?
JUDGMENT:-
According to the findings of the Trial Court, the appellant was mentally, physically and financially harassed and tortured by the respondent. The Trial Court held that there is no cordiality left between the parties and there is no possibility of their living together. Hence, there was no alternative but to dissolve the marriage between the parties. However, the High Court held that actions of the appellant amounted to misconduct, un-condonable for the purpose of Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Hence, the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the Trial Court was set aside.
The appellant preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that the petition for divorce was filed primarily on the ground of cruelty. The Supreme Court then delved into how cruelty had been defined in various judgments. The Supreme Court held that the standard of proof to be used in matrimonial cases was the standard of preponderance of probability. The Supreme Court held that injury or apprehended injury to health was an important factor. The cruelty of the reprehensible conduct is to be determined on the basis of whether the cumulative conduct was sufficiently weighty to say that from a reasonable person’s point of view, the conduct is such that the petitioner ought not to be called upon to endure it.
To establish legal cruelty, it is not necessary that physical violence ought to be used. Mental cruelty can be legal cruelty too. The Court cited Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988 AIR 121), in which it was stated that cruelty may be physical or mental, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Also, there may be cases where the complained of itself is bad enough or per se unlawful or illegal. In such cases, cruelty is established if the conduct itself is admitted or proved. Intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. The cruelty alleged may depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions and their culture and human values to which they attach importance.
If the intention to harm, harass or hurt could be inferred by the nature of the conduct or brutal act complained of, cruelty could be established. Mental cruelty is the conduct of the other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(a) is to be taken as behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for her/him to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioural pattern of the other. Mental cruelty falls within the purview of matrimonial wrong.
To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be “grave and weighty” so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other spouse. The conduct must be such as to satisfy the Court that the relationship has deteriorated to such an extent that it would be impossible for them to live together. A consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may constitute cruelty. However, every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. The unusual step of granting divorce is to be taken when only to clear up the insoluble mess when the Court finds it in the interest of both the parties.
The Court observed that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Drawing from the 71st Law Commission Report, the Court reiterated that restricting the ground of divorce to a particular offence or matrimonial disability causes injustice where the situation is such that although none of the parties is at fault, or the fault is of such a nature that the parties to the marriage do not want to divulge it, there has arisen a situation in which the marriage cannot be worked. In case the marriage has ceased to exist in substance and in reality, there is no reason for denying divorce, and then the parties alone can decide whether their mutual relationship provides the fulfilment which they seek. Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them as presented a petition of divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. Marriage in such cases becomes a legal fiction supported by a legal tie. Refusing to sever that tie in law does not serve the sanctity of marriage, but only shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties.
The Court held that the findings of the High Court to be wholly unsustainable. The Court found the matrimonial bond between the parties to be beyond repair. Public interest and interest of all concerned lies in the recognition of this fact and to declare defunct de jure what is already defunct de facto.
HELD:-
Appeal disposed of. Marriage between the parties was to be dissolved according to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Court recommended the government to incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the grant of divorce.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
